ADDED: Almost no one is going for the idea that your choice of method would depend on whether you deserved harsh punishment. I put those alternatives in there because I thought people would quibble about that. But no. Now, the 2 choices have been polling about equal, and I wonder if it's because there's a difference of opinion about which is actually less painful or if it's a preference about the sort of drama you'd feel best about.

That's how it looks from the outside. How it feels from the inside, we don't get to find out. There was a Supreme Court case about it recently, and the issue had to do with whether the person, immobilized by drugs was then fully rendered unconscious before the drug that would stop his heart went in. It's possible that the heart-stopping is extremely painful. At least the bullets to the heart are fully painful. It's also much more dramatic and it involves the executioners more directly in the event.

I have no love for the death penalty. If there were an actual life sentence without parole that was never commuted because someone felt bad for the murderer once he became decrepit, then I would be cool with that.

But noooooo.Someone on the parole board gets all misty-eyed when the serial killer smiles at 75 and coughs and wobbles.

It's also much more dramatic and it involves the executioners more directly in the event.

If there's ever a time in life for drama, surely it's your own execution? Hopefully if I were actually innocent I could do my best Sydney Carton give some version of the "It is a far, far better thing that I do..." speech, my favorite soliloquy in all of literature.

I didn't answer "if I felt I deserved it" because that struck me as nonsensical. If I was guilty, the crime would be on purpose, so the drama of a firing squad would go along with that. If I wasn't guilty it's a much better, and more dramatic, final statement.

During preparation for the Gilmore execution, the Utah process was explained. The five rifle were lined up through a wall, pre-aimed and pre-loaded. The firing squad pulled lanyards, which pulled the triggers. It was claimed that only one rifle had an actual live round in it, the others had blanks. Gilmore's brother disputed that, saying Gary's shirt had five bullet holes though it. So much for truth in reporting, whatever the actual facts of the case.

The five rifle were lined up through a wall, pre-aimed and pre-loaded. The firing squad pulled lanyards, which pulled the triggers.

The firing squad fell out of favor as a method of execution because it was believed in some high-profile cases the executioners shot with the intent of causing a slow, painful death. I'm guessing they cooked up this arrangement to ensure that doesn't happen.

Seriously, that would remove the "conscience of executioner[s]" issue, wouldn't it? Assuming putting a bullet through one's own head, or whatever, was just one on the menu of options--I'm not suggesting FORCING someone to shoot himself or herself.

Is the bullet to the heart, or to the brain? I would think a bullet to the brain would be the least painful option. I'm pretty sure lethal injection is at least more painful than that, and perhaps even more so than a bullet to the heart. I couldn't give a damn about the drama.

There was a Supreme Court case about it recently, and the issue had to do with whether the person, immobilized by drugs was then fully rendered unconscious before the drug that would stop his heart went in.

Really? Given all the money we spend on appeals and all that for execution cases, you'd think we could spring for some general anesthesia. I think we have a pretty good handle on how to ensure we don't feel pain when surgeons are rummaging around in our innards, so putting someone under for execution should be well within our technical capabilities.

I am reminded of the Far Side cartoon -- early -- wherein the condemned is having his cigarette lit by the executioner while the riflemen stand at the ready, and the lady next door is screaming "Fire" from a burning building.

Larson did a great job of drawing the look on the soon-to-be-in-the-line-of-fire Executioner's face.

During preparation for the Gilmore execution, the Utah process was explained. The five rifle were lined up through a wall, pre-aimed and pre-loaded. The firing squad pulled lanyards, which pulled the triggers. It was claimed that only one rifle had an actual live round in it, the others had blanks. Gilmore's brother disputed that, saying Gary's shirt had five bullet holes though it. So much for truth in reporting, whatever the actual facts of the case.

That's substantially inaccurate. Only one of the rifles is loaded with a blank. The rest have live ammunition. Here's a more complete (and accurate) description of Utah's procedures:

The Utah statute authorizing execution by firing squad only provides: "If the judgment of death is to be carried out by shooting, the executive director of the department or his designee shall select a five-person firing squad of peace officers." At the appropriate time, the condemned offender is led to the execution area or chamber, which is used for both lethal injection and firing squad executions. The offender is placed in a specially designed chair.... The offender is dressed in a dark blue outfit with a white cloth circle attached by Velcro to the area over the offender's heart. ...Approximately 20 feet directly in front of the offender is a wall. This wall has firing ports for each member of the firing squad. The weapons used are 30_30 caliber rifles. No special ammunition is used. Following the offender's statement, a hood is placed over the offender's head. The warden leaves the room. The firing squad members stand in the firing position. They support their rifles on the platform rests. With their rifle barrels in the firing ports, the team members sight through open sights on the white cloth circle on the offender's chest. On the command to fire, the squad fires simultaneously. One squad member has a blank charge in his weapon but no member knows which member is designated to receive this blank charge.

Thus, the equation is not "just one of us" has the possibility of being the executioner (and we'll never know), but rather "all but one of us" has the possibility of being the executioner (and I'll never know). Plus, there's no betting on just one person to be dead-on, so to speak, or making it as easy for someone to rig the "one not-blank" to belong to sharpest-shooter out there and thus masking and complicating all sorts of things.

Wouldn't you defeat all attempts at cruel and inhuman punishment arguments buy slowly pumping the perp full of heroin until he or she passed out and stopped breathing. The put a bullet in their head just to be sure.

Frankly, I was surprised that, in response to my initial comment, somebody didn't come back with either, "What if given the gun, the condemned started shooting at the people there?" or "What if the condemned shot himself or herself, but didn't finished the job?" I'm not sure whether that gives me hope or makes me despair, but in any case, it lets me off the hook of responding further.

Frankly, I was surprised that, in response to my initial comment, somebody didn't come back with either, "What if given the gun, the condemned started shooting at the people there?"

I've often thought that would be an ideal setup for a first person shooter video game. You start out in a library, with a revolver. The gamer has no idea what's going on, but it's a video game, and he's started out with a loaded revolver, so he knows he's supposed to do -- pop out of the library, kill the guards, and take their weapons and ammo. It proceeds from there.

If I feel the need to ever commit that level of crime that deserves death, I'll do it against the government and should get a firing squad. Besides that, injection really isn't painless, it just makes you unable to articulate the pain.

Balfegor: Given that you neither presented my whole sentence or bothered to use an ellipsis to indicate your choice to truncate it, why the hell should I take a metaphor of yours seriously? Or, while I'm at it, think well of your idea of good game?

Balfegor: Given that you neither presented my whole sentence or bothered to use an ellipsis to indicate your choice to truncate it, why the hell should I take a metaphor of yours seriously?

Not a metaphor -- it's a riff on the way video games often start: you get dropped into some situation with a gun (or a crowbar or something) and start killing people until you figure out what the plot (such as it is) is. Revolver in the library, expected to do the decent thing, is one of the only situations I can think of where that would even make sense.

And I'm not sure why you would even try to take it "seriously" as a metaphor, it's so obviously not one.

Or, while I'm at it, think well of your idea of good game?

I don't actually play video games much. I would have no idea what makes a "good" video game. I think that has to do with the mechanics of the game itself, not superficialities like how the game starts out.